DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TUR
Docket No: 1514-12
27 November 2012
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of Title 10, United
States Code, Section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 20 November 2012. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Your
allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance
with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the
proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by
the Board consisted of your application, together with all
material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and
applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
You enlisted in the Navy on 26 March 1981 and immediately began a
period of active duty. About four months later, on 27 July 1981,
you received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongful possession
and use of marijuana.
During the period from 6 April to 6 June 1983 your urine sample
tested positive for wrongful marijuana use on three occasions.
As a result, on 3 August 1983 you again received NJP for wrongful
use of marijuana. Although the record does not reflect the
complete details of your misconduct in the civilian community, it
clearly reflects that in August 1983 you were convicted by civil
authorities of driving while intoxicated (DWI).
Subsequently, you were processed for an administrative separation
by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse. After consulting with
legal counsel, you elected to present your case to an
administrative discharge board (ADB). On 8 March 1984 an ADB
recommended separation under honorable conditions by reason of
misconduct due to drug abuse, but further recommended that the
separation be suspended for 12 months. The following month, on
16 April 1984, you again failed a urinalysis screening by testing
positive for wrongful use of marijuana. Shortly thereafter, on
30 April 1984, your commanding officer recommended discharge
under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due
to drug abuse as evidenced by three positive urinalyses, two NJPs
for drug use, and civil conviction for DWI. This recommendation
stated, in part, that although you knew the Navy’s policy
regarding the illegal use of drugs, you chose to disregard it as
evidenced by your five instances of drug usage. On 15 May 1984
the discharge authority approved the recommendations for
separation by reason of misconduct, but in concurrence with the
ADB, directed a general discharge. On 14 June 1984 you received
your third NUP for absence from your appointed place of duty.
Shortly thereafter, on 12 July 1984, you were issued a general
discharge by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application,
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your post service conduct and desire to upgrade the
characterization of your general discharge and change your
narrative reason for separation. Nevertheless, the Board
concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant relief in
your case because of the seriousness of your repetitive drug and
alcohol related misconduct in both the military and civilian
communities. Finally, Sailors with a record of misconduct, such
as yours, normally receive discharges under other than honorable
conditions, and as such the Board noted that you were fortunate
to receive a general characterization of service. Accordingly,
your application has been denied.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that
favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have the
Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and material
evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board.
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a
presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval
record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
Qiton Dror
BRIAN J. GEORGE
Head, Discharge Review Section
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07464-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 June 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07798-07
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 3 September 2008. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Subsequently, on 15 October 1984, you received an other than honorable discharge by reason of misconduct.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09810-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 June 2011. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 00149-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 November 2008. your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03048-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 January 2011. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. You received two more NUPs on 24 January and 18 February 1983 for falsifying an official document, a one day period of unauthorized absence (UA), and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 01733-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 January 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all Material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 07047-07
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice.You enlisted in the Navy on 19 January 1981 at age 18. The punishment imposed was extra duty and...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 02403-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 January 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 10259-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval’ Records, sitting in executive session, considered ‘your application on 6 July 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. During this period you also admitted to using marijuana on two occasions, but stated that you would not use any drugs while serving in the Navy.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 00898-01
On 3 June 1983 an ADB recommended you be issued a general discharge by reason of Shortly thereafter, on 17 May After misconduct due to drug abuse. discharged by reason of misconduct normally receive discharges Accordingly, you were under other than honorable conditions. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.